A) Importance of the landscape/seascape/indigenous territory for biodiversity, with additional consideration to climate benefits.
1. Is the proposed territory/landscape/seascape a globally important area for biodiversity?
Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Proposed are of interest shows a high species range and rarity. Community Conservancy area of 36KHa serves as a corridor for elephants and other wildlife.
Evidence B:NA
2. Is the area important for climate mitigation?
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Area shows a low to moderate level of irrecoverable carbon. Proposed project activities include reducing felling of live trees and dependence on charcoal, reducing carbon emissions.
Evidence B:NA
B) Geographical focus in an area under IPLC governance.
3. Is the area held and managed by IPLC under community-based governance systems?
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Conservancies are led by landowner committees and governed by a Board of Directors draw from the community . The predominant group in the EoI area is the Samburu People. Per the EoI, ‘…the conservancy board members provide required leadership under the Samburu traditional and cultural powerful informal laws which are held in the custody of the community by elders. ‘Community conservancies are now recognized by law as protected areas with strict requirements to achieve the PA status. One of these obligation is that a conservancy must demonstrate strong governance structure.
Evidence B:NA
4. Does the proposal explain the unique cultural significance of the area to IPLCs?
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: EoI indicated that the Samburu people are pastoralists with historical coexistence between people, livestock, and wildlife. Cultural significance is referenced and/or implied throughout the EoI, although not specifically articulated in detail.
Evidence B:NA
C) Vulnerability of the proposed IPLCs as well as their lands/waters/natural resources to threats.
5. Is the area vulnerable to threats/current risk of negative impacts to IPLC and biodiversity without action?
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Main threats to the area include habitat loss, overexploitation, climate change and environmental pollution. Threats are interconnected, increasing intensity. Climate change impacts validity of traditional knowledge and increased extremes of drought and flooding impact all areas.
Evidence B:NA
D) Opportunities for ICI results - including enabling policy conditions, positive government support and presence of successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives that could be scaled up.
6. Are enabling policy conditions in place for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed area?
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Per the EoI, Kirimon Community Conservancy works under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act (CAP 376) guidelines that stipulates the programs and activities that a conservancy can implement for sustainability. It is difficult to rate this question since indigenous peoples are not recognized in Kenya, which has not signed ILO 169 nor ratified UNDRIP. Community land rights are recognized per Article 63:of the Constitution of Kenya which guarantees the rights of communities to their lands and territories. It states that community land consists of land lawfully held, managed, or used by specific communities as community forests, grazing areas or shrines and that it includes ancestral lands and lands traditionally occupied by hunter-gatherer communities.
Evidence B:NA
7. Is there active government support for IPLC-led conservation in the proposed country/area?
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: See Q. 6 above. IPLC conservation is occurring via CCAs, but not recognized as indigenous peoples conservation. EoI indicates strong partnership with the Kenya Wildlife Service to which rangers report data and with the Kenya Police Service which trains community enforcement officers.
Evidence B:NA
8. Are there successful IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the proposed area that provide a foundation for scaling up?
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The applicant Conservancy is a member of the Northern Rangeland Trust, which include 39 Community Conservancies. The NRT service as main funder and partner to the Kirimon Conservancy. KCC is also a member of the Kenya Wildlife Conservancies Association which works with communities to conserve and manage wildlife outside of formally protected areas.
Evidence B:NA
E) Synergies with existing investments.
9. Are there other initiatives (relevant projects) that provide complementary support for IPLC-led conservation in the geography?
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Since this is an EoI from a single Conservancy other investments are small and activities funded by the same source. The EoI mentions other Conservancies as partners, but Northern Rangelands Trust is currently the sole funder of activities.
Evidence B:NA
Section 2 - Quality and ability of the proposed approach and interventions to achieve transformational impact that generate the global environmental benefits (Total Points: 40)
A) Quality of proposed approach and ability to support traditional structures, knowledge and community practices in the delivery of global environmental benefits.
1. Is the proposed approach well aligned with the overall objective of the ICI to: Enhance Indigenous Peoples' and Local Communities' (IPLCs) efforts to steward land, waters and natural resources to deliver global environmental benefits?
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The approach is well aligned in that is fully designed and led by IPLC organization and it addresses threats to both biodiversity and human livelihoods. Impact and results would be significant for the proposed area, but the size of the Conservancy limits the impact to GEBs
Evidence B:NA
2. Does the EoI present a clear and convincing set of activities and results?
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The activities will contribute to results/outcomes and are realistic in scope to address the priorities stated in the EoI. However, the activities are not clearly connected to each result. The approach appears well thought out and community priorities and planning are evident, but the approach needs to be organized into a logical flow. The Conservancy would benefit from some mentoring in project design from a more experienced local organization.
Evidence B:NA
3. Will the project (objectives and activities) contribute to overcoming identified threats and putting in place necessary enabling opportunities for IPLC-led conservation?
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The proposed activities would all contribute to overcoming identified threats. However, the number of activities may be difficult for one community to effectively implement. A detailed action plan identifying sources of skills and would be required.
Evidence B:NA
4. Are the activities achievable within a $500,000 to $2,000,000 USD budget range in a period of 5 years of project execution?
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Activities would be a small investment and may qualify better as a sub-grant from a Conservancy Association.
Evidence B:NA
5. Does the EoI include significant and concrete sources of co-financing?
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: In kind contributions from Conservancy members are the only co-financing identified.
Evidence B:NA
B) Potential of the proposed activities to achieve IPLC-led transformational impact that generate global environmental benefits.
6. Are the estimated Global Environmental Benefits (GEF core indicators) substantial and realistic?
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: This is a very small project with area under improved management shown as 36Kha.
Evidence B:NA
7. Are the additional cultural and livelihoods results contributing to project objectives?
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Indicators are aligned with project goals.
Evidence B:NA
8. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust vision for long-term sustainability?
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: Project would lay foundation to improve IPLC management and address threats. However, project needs to have a clear longer-term plan in a full proposal to ensure initial objectives have a clear connection to future sustainability.
Evidence B:NA
C) IPLC-led conservation that advances national and global environmental priorities.
9. Does the EoI build on and contribute to national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and/or NDCs?
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Information not included in EoI.
Evidence B:NA
D) Demonstrated gender mainstreaming in all activities.
10. Does the EoI provide a clear and robust approach to gender mainstreaming?
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Gender mainstreaming is recognized throughout the various activities proposed.
Evidence B:NA
E) Innovation and potential to scale up.
11. Do the proposed activities and results demonstrate innovation and potential for transformative results at scale?
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: At the community scale, yes. Potential for replicability would increase scale. Other Conservancies are identified for learning exchange.
Evidence B:NA
Section 3 - Qualifications and experience of the Organization (Total Points: 30)
A) Indigenous Peoples or Local Community organization legally recognized under national laws.
1. Is the EoI led by an IPLC organization?
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Fully composed by Kirimon Conservancy but would rely on umbrella association, North Rangelands Trust for fiduciary role.
Evidence B:NA
B) Demonstrated on the ground leadership related to Indigenous Peoples and/or Local Community Conservation.
2. Does the lead proponent demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work?
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Applicant has an on the ground Conservancy Manager showing appropriate skills and experience. However, he is appears tasked with all management functions and implementation and financial oversight. EoI implies a high dependence on community members for implementation. A full proposal would need action plan with clearer definition of skills and personnel.
Evidence B:NA
C) Proven relevant experience in working with IPLC networks, alliances and organizations/ strength of partnerships on the ground.
3. Does EoI demonstrate that the lead proponent has strong partnerships, particularly with other IPLC organizations, to carry out the work?
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Only Northern Rangelands Trust is shown as a supporting partner to supplement Conservancy staff expertise.
Evidence B:NA
D) Technical expertise and capacity to address environmental problems, root causes and barriers.
4. Does EoI demonstrate technical capacity of lead proponent and partners to deliver the proposed results?
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Staff limited to Conservancy Manager who lists sufficient skills. However, he is the dole staff member for implementation and oversight, including fiduciary responsibilities. Not clear of Northern Rangelands Trust would provide fiduciary or management support. No experience with GEF projects or complexities of multilateral funding.
Evidence B:NA
E) Project Management capacity.
5. Does the EoI demonstrate project & financial management capacity needed for scale of proposed effort?
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: See. Q. 4 above Financial resources are not diversified-80% from one source. Annual budget is $45K and project example indicated grant amount of $30k.
Evidence B:NA
6. Does lead organization have experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF?
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA